About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
worried about presidents who act unilaterally and he's doing it again just like george bush did. we made george bush come back to the congress and get a vote before we went into iraq. the congress, i think, made a mistake in doing it, but at least we all took responsibility for what happened. in this one, the president is taking it all on himself. what's the hurry and what is the goal? what are you expecting to be the goal that we accomplish day two after we've shot in 50 tomahawk missiles? when we have taken out assad? is that the goal? or is it take out the syrian army? or is it to lay the country waste to make rubble? what is it we are intending to get out of this? >> you clearly want a vote on this, and some of our viewers have been tweeting about this and there's a lot of consternation, obviously, as we stand now in the precipice of what looks like another war in the middle eve. one viewer writing into me, the president needs a vote here if for no other reason to have cover for what happens afterwards. do you think there will be political recriminations after the fact if the preside
on the left during the george w. bush years. it was the same kind of over average in the executive branch. you mentioned dreamers, obama care. these are all agenda items that the president decided to execute because he didn't want to involve congress. because he couldn't promote his agenda through congress. that's not the way we make laws in this country. we can't pretend just because the president wants to do something, another branch of government doesn't that gives him the authority to do so. >> you've studied relationships between congress and the executive branch for a long time. is what we're seeing here unprecedented or a more normal thing? >> it's more normal, taken to a different level. i get amused when i see the back and forth on this. i remember wall street editorials during the reagan and bush years which made it clear there was no article i in the constitution. now you're getting indignation over things that they had deeply supported in the past. i don't like to see -- i didn't like to see all kinds of signing statements that basically said i've signed this law, but i'm not going
. joining me, sam thernstrom who served with president george w. bush. executive director of the energy innovate reform project. and sam, my first question is, how do we get over this? this is my big -- i realize that i can't be the person that breaks the ice here, that figures out the way to make this dialogue not be as toxic and terrible and self-destructive as it is. how do we get out of this dead end? >> well, actually, chris, we can start right here. you can help. you can't do it yourself, but you can help. we can start by actually breaking down the assumptions in your setup just now which was the idea which is perpetuated by a lot of environmental activists that if you accept the basic science of climate change then you must accept the entire democratic or environmental agenda on climate policy. my experience is talking to others, they know they object to the policy measures that democrats propose, and so that stiffens their resistance on climate. if we have a constructive conversation about the policy options that conservatives could support, we might have a different conversatio
for years. you might recall george w. bush's ownership society. but then the president addressed the fact not everyone can or even should buy a home and suggested a re-examination of current policy affecting renters. >> in the runup to the crisis, banks and governments too often made everybody feel like they had to own a home even if they weren't ready and didn't have the payments. that's a mistake we should not repeat. instead, let's invest in affordable rental housing. let's bring together cities and states to address local barriers that drive up rents for working families. >> those aren't big policies the president previewed in renting. they're not on the scale of, say, ending the fact that people who buy a home get a huge tax break and people who rent one get nothing. but there is evidence there is m now finally friction around the idea every american should always and everywhere be a homeowner. joining me is heidi moore a u.s. finance editor for "the guardian" newspaper. my friend mike consul with the roosevelt institute and chief financial and regulatory correspondent for "the hufrg
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)